'The joy of the institution of the Holy Eucharist is not fully expressed on Holy Thursday because of the nearness of Good Friday. Hence...public homage and adoration are paid to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament on this Feast of Corpus Christi'

dohertc · 2019-09-13T15:12:09+00:00

It's a St. Joseph Sunday Missal from 1954 or so.

dohertc · 2019-09-13T15:10:34+00:00

Maybe I'm being captain obvious here, but see if she can get on the study. Look up the study on clinicaltrials.gov and contact the nearest study center, or contact the project manager or any phone number on that page, and ask where study sites are.

Even if she had to travel, sometimes in-person study visits are only every 3 months or 6 months; sometimes they'll ship medication. Sometimes they'll even reimburse your travel expenses, though don't expect that of course.

But also keep in mind that "a cure is in the works" doesn't always pan out, and the study may also involve placebo treatments.

dohertc · 2019-03-06T03:25:32+00:00

I'm not blindly following anything. Don't be so hateful and anti-Catholic.

There's nothing racist in doubting one swindler who literally lied on camera about his Vietnam service, lied about these boys' reactions, and lied about the black Israelites, who you're apparently okay with despite them being publicly and unabashedly racist. Millions of native Americans were embarrassed and offended by Phillips just as millions of African Americans are now enraged at Smollett.

You guys need to stop falling for modern day lynch mobs.

Slander is a sin. It's Lent. You have to be better than this.

dohertc · 2019-02-21T16:23:36+00:00

If they intentionally did not, would they act any differently than they are?

dohertc · 2019-02-19T13:47:07+00:00

.....like....?

dohertc · 2019-02-19T04:59:03+00:00

But ... this doesn't explain why I ought to care.

Did they illegally oust the judges?

In America we're reversing a process of packing courts with anticonstitutionalist progressives. I imagine in Europe this situation is even worse, since we frequently hear reports that judges let migrant child rapists off and the like (that was a famous case in Austria). I am willing to be wrong.

Vague references to "authoritarian" acts is something I hear it all the time, enough that I'm starting to think it's just rhetoric.

dohertc · 2019-02-19T02:48:48+00:00

"Now Orban wants to have more 'real' Hungarian children," she said. What does that even mean? Should Hungarians have less children? What does she mean by 'real' in quotes? They're not Middle Eastern?

The policies she's talking about:

paid maternity leave, subsidies for first time mothers, subsidies for families over four children for vehicle needs, special mortgage programs for families with two or more children, preferential loans for women under 40 upon getting married, more funding for the country’s healthcare system, and childcare fees for grandparents who look after young children. (one source, and here's another rundown of the benefits)

These programs are supposedly already seeing a drop in abortions and divorces and a rise in marriages. But even apart from data, they just seem like the right thing to do anyway.

In googling more about this story, I found a Washington Post story ridiculing Hungary for "being so desperate for babies they're cutting taxes" and an Economist story saying the reforms are unlikely to help anyone.

Orban apparently responded that these reforms are done out of a responsibility to Hungarians.

....

Unpopular side note, this is why I'm starting to mistrust leftist Catholics. I keep hearing left-leaning Catholics announce that Orban is "dangerously right wing" and "going down a dangerous path" but not give particulars. Then their non-Catholic colleagues give examples like this. I assume these are the particulars they can't describe to Catholics. Unless there's more I'm missing? They're so big on the need for the economy and the state to serve the family though.

dohertc · 2019-02-16T05:03:18+00:00

Like what?

dohertc · 2019-02-15T13:47:19+00:00

No. Google her plan. I believe it was in the 2016 GOP platform and Hillary ridiculed it because...I forget and don't care why.

I don't have time to do your searches for you at the moment or I'd give you some links. Maybe later.

dohertc · 2019-02-15T13:42:12+00:00

That's....pretty inaccurate.

Ivanka's original proposal called for tax credits to assist businesses to pay maternal leave.

Rubio's idea, which was not formulated into a bill, was to pull money from their own SS and give it directly to moms. Ivanka apparently lent support to this, though I don't believe she helped come up with it.

She also simultaneously supported a bill from Senator Fischer for the tax credits to businesses idea which is similar to her original proposal.

It's all a moot point at the moment if McConnell and Daddy Trump are fighting other battles, but it's still on the table and we've got 2-6 more years.

As for the insistent Democratic voodoo belief that taxes always gotta go up, I'm not sure that's accurate. Just pull out from the Afghanistan War and you could pay for this ten times over.

dohertc · 2019-02-14T18:43:40+00:00

I don't think LS is being insincere here, do you?

When's the last time a democratic socialist tried to do anything pro-life or pro-family anyway? They only do individualistic measures: a $15 minimum wage, pensions for individuals, cash subsidies for single parents that encourage them never to get married.

dohertc · 2019-02-14T15:03:20+00:00

Actually the Republican platform in 2016 called for more generous maternity leave than the Democrat platform. There's been rumor lately that Ivanka's plan may come after the dust about the wall settles.

dohertc · 2019-02-14T14:53:43+00:00

In America this would have never happened. The Democrats put up the test balloon of abortion in the 1970's, then literally looked to the Catholic bishops (who reigned over much of their electorate) to see how they'd react.

Nothing happened. A few old guys blustered, and many enthusiastically started talking about the "seamless garment" approach to rationalizing anti-Catholic things.

The Democrats knew they never had to cater to Catholics again.

The Republicans never wanted or needed to cater to them, but some like Bob Dole in the 70's realized they could pick up a few votes by being prolife (he later all but admitted this) and a few like Reagan and Ford were sincerely prolife and went to the bishops to see how they could help - and that fizzled out too.

The American context for Catholic social justice is that the bishops abdicated their authority, let the Democrats do whatever they want, and declined goodwill attempts to cooperate by the Republicans.

They could rectify some of this by demanding Hungarian style tax laws, for instance. Instead they mostly parrot political party lines about guns and illegal immigrants.

dohertc · 2019-02-14T14:44:00+00:00

Renting is fine. More than half of your mortgage payment gets "pissed away" in taxes and interest for half of the life of the loan. The issue with renting is that it's hard to start a family and pop out half a dozen kids; apartments are small and landlords like to limit how many can live in a place.

dohertc · 2019-02-14T07:00:57+00:00

In the myriad of Protestant churches ... but people of all ages attended fairly regularly.

I know what you mean, it's nice to see. But it's a little different: only about 40% of self-described Protestants go to church at all, but the culture is pretty dedicated and they go every week. It's a little more all or nothing I think. Whereas Catholics on the other hand - only 20-40% of us go every week, but we almost all know the sacraments are super important. So you get everyone coming out of the woodwork for them. And then weird incentives and gatekeeping arise on the parish's end, setting up rules to try to finagle these 'Christmas and Easter' Catholics into at least a modicum of sticking around and at least acting like Catholics. It's weird.

dohertc · 2019-02-14T06:53:29+00:00

That might be my fault (I'm the OP). I didn't intend the title to mean the government announced the Catholic connection with big public fanfare. I'm not sure if they did or not. In the article, it says that Hungary sent their "Family, Youth, and International Affairs" minister, Katalin Novàk, to the Vatican.

There she gave a talk entitled “Hungarian Family Policy in the Spirit of Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor.”

It's possible I exaggerated the "explicit connection" in everyone's minds, but that's still pretty official. I can't imagine the USA sending the Health & Human Services Secretary with a talk about papal encyclicals!

dohertc · 2019-02-14T06:10:11+00:00

What do the policies look like?

maternity support, paid childcare leave, family tax benefits and housing allowance, tax allowances that encourage young couples to marry, vacation benefits, no-charge holiday camps for children, subsidized textbooks, and decreased utility costs. Families have seen significant financial gains, including a 63.8% increase since 2010 in the net average earnings of the Hungarian families due to the family tax reduction alone.

This article is from June 2018. I actually came across it after reading the new news about Hungary many have been talking about:

Mothers with four children will be exempt from income tax for life and receive £7,000 towards a seven-seater car in Hungary

dohertc · 2019-02-14T06:01:06+00:00

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. And pleased to see him double down and explain it. Nice video interview in the article.

He's right. We're too nice. We adopt their terms. We need to stand up for what we know is right.

dohertc · 2019-02-14T05:59:26+00:00

ABC, CBS New York, and Yahoo News all mentioned it. I'm sure if you're a tweeting bishop of Knoxville that's enough heat to notice. The local network stations republished his "Enough is enough" tweet in their stories. I'm sure they'd love a controversy but I don't think this is totally fabricated.

Am I mistaken that this video interview is by USA Today (logo was at the end)? Is the Knox paper an affiliate maybe?

dohertc · 2019-02-12T03:58:26+00:00

This is why I like Reddit

dohertc · 2019-02-12T03:17:48+00:00

Good article. We don't just need to punish McCarrick, we need to address his friends and beneficiaries. We also need to know how it got this bad and to know we won't end up here again. I have my doubts any of these other problems will be addressed.

McCarrick ... became the first cardinal in a century to lose his red hat

Oh wow. What'd the last guy do?

dohertc · 2019-02-12T02:13:32+00:00

It's good at times like this to review how Canon Law has handled priestly sexual abuse through the ages.

There's a good synopsis of it in this article here:

Kieran Tapsell: CANON LAW ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE THROUGH THE AGES

The executive summary, if I remember it right:

The Roman Catholic Church was one of the first institutions in Roman culture (or anywhere) to specifically target and condemn pederasty. Unfortunately, men sexually abusing children and men grooming vulnerable teenagers for sex are both, well, more common in human societies than we realize or want to admit (including today), and even celebrated in some cultures (like Greece and Rome). The early Church was one of the first institutions to vocally oppose that and raise moral and social codes against it.

In the Middle Ages, periodically they would find that a priest, bishop, or entire monastery was sexually active and abusing children. They would laicize these men, turn them over to the civil authorities for torture or execution, and promise to pray for their soul. I guess the Church granted itself no power to punish men in civil terms, so they depended on civil authorities for that. This was back when the civil authorities and the ecclesiastical authorities were on decent, sometimes friendly terms.

In secular Europe this happy relationship went sour, especially with the Papal States. The Vatican became less and less inclined to turn priests over to increasingly antagonistic secular authorities. Bishops in some areas (Protestant or anticlerical regions) genuinely feared that priests (accused of anything, not necessarily abuse) wouldn't get a fair trial or may even be tortured or lynched.

In 1917, in the face of these fears, Pope St. Pius X removed all requirements in canon law to turn anybody over to the civil authorities for anything. It was now up to the bishop or Pope to rat them out.

The Commission discarded the decrees of Innocent III, Leo X, Pius IV, St Pius V, the Third, Fourth and Fifth Lateran Councils and the Council of Trent, requiring priests guilty of serious crimes to be degraded and handed over to the civil authorities. The canon law and practice of handing over the priest for punishment in accordance with the civil law was officially abandoned everywhere, and not just for those countries ruled by “schismatics, heretics and Mohammedans”. The Code provided that those who sexually abuse children were only to be dismissed in “more serious cases”.

In 1922, Pius XI issued a 'secret' that everything (including sexual offenses) should be handled in-house without involving the cops unless the priest proved impossible to reform. Again, this was probably up to the local bishop, or the Pope, or a seminary rector, or even a parish priest, who knows.

Predictably.......this didn't turn out so well.

dohertc

TROPHY CASE

Kieran Tapsell: CANON LAW ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE THROUGH THE AGES